Slate - Why Romney Is a Foreign Policy Lightweight

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

This editorial gets at an interesting and under-reported aspect of the Romney campaign. I'm interested in responses from a Romney-supporters. What would you expect from him? Why is he qualified? Is it really enough to respond that the economy is more important? Do we even know how he'd staff his administration?

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidential elections do not hinge on foreign policy. On this point, conventional wisdom is almost certainly correct. But it shouldn’t be, for two reasons. First, foreign policy is the one realm in which presidents can do pretty much what they want. (Congress may rant at some action but rarely halts it.) Second, in this election in particular, Mitt Romney’s statements on foreign policy range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous.
Does Romney believe the things that he’s said about arms control, Russia, the Middle East, the defense budget, and the rest? Who can say? He has no experience on any of these issues. But his advisers do; they represent, mainly, the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party (some, notably John Bolton, veer well to the right of even that). While not all presidents wind up following their advisers, Romney has placed his byline atop some of his coterie’s most egregious arguments—not least, several op-ed pieces against President Obama’s New START with Russia, pieces that rank as the most ignorant I’ve read in nearly 40 years of following the nuclear debate.

[Continued]

[FreedomFighter]

Of course he's unqualified. All Republican foreign policy has been bone-headed and militaristic. They should all go back to the less enlightened times where they belong.

[Emperor SJoyce]

He'll have the exact same foreign policy as Obama. Don't see how it could be an issue when it's an issue which those two do not differ on.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

He'll have the exact same foreign policy as Obama. Don't see how it could be an issue when it's an issue which those two do not differ on.

Yes, because we all know about how Obama nuked the Middle East back in 2009.

[Lief]

Clearly Mitt "Let's increase the size of the navy!" Romney is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. This has been clear for a while now.

[oakvale]

Mitt Romney's foreign policy is just saying things like "America must remain a beacon of freedom!" every now and again and vowing not to kill Bin Laden if he was in Pakistan once in a while.

[Emperor SJoyce]

He'll have the exact same foreign policy as Obama. Don't see how it could be an issue when it's an issue which those two do not differ on.

Yes, because we all know about how Obama nuked the Middle East back in 2009.

Are you saying Romney wants to launch nuclear weapons at an entire region of the world?

[WhyteRain]

1.  Romney's an idiot, period.

2.  No one's going to care.  This election will be all about Obama.

3.  Obama's a foreign policy fool, too. 

4.  At least because Romney's perceived as a conservative (what a laugh), it will be harder for him to maintain his own personal "Kill List" and bomb/invade any country he wants without Congressional authorization. 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Obama wasn't qualified in any area in 2008, but he won. So I still think Romney has the leg up. Like Obama, he'll learn on the job, and I think he'll be fair.

[milhouse24]

This editorial gets at an interesting and under-reported aspect of the Romney campaign. I'm interested in responses from a Romney-supporters. What would you expect from him? Why is he qualified? Is it really enough to respond that the economy is more important? Do we even know how he'd staff his administration?

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidential elections do not hinge on foreign policy. On this point, conventional wisdom is almost certainly correct. But it shouldn’t be, for two reasons. First, foreign policy is the one realm in which presidents can do pretty much what they want. (Congress may rant at some action but rarely halts it.) Second, in this election in particular, Mitt Romney’s statements on foreign policy range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous.
Does Romney believe the things that he’s said about arms control, Russia, the Middle East, the defense budget, and the rest? Who can say? He has no experience on any of these issues. But his advisers do; they represent, mainly, the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party (some, notably John Bolton, veer well to the right of even that). While not all presidents wind up following their advisers, Romney has placed his byline atop some of his coterie’s most egregious arguments—not least, several op-ed pieces against President Obama’s New START with Russia, pieces that rank as the most ignorant I’ve read in nearly 40 years of following the nuclear debate.

[Continued]

I think Obama claimed foreign policy experience because he was from Kenya and lived in indonesia.

But Mitt's dad was born in Mexico and Mitt lived in France for one year.  I think they are about equal in their foreign policy credentials. 

[ajb]

This editorial gets at an interesting and under-reported aspect of the Romney campaign. I'm interested in responses from a Romney-supporters. What would you expect from him? Why is he qualified? Is it really enough to respond that the economy is more important? Do we even know how he'd staff his administration?

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidential elections do not hinge on foreign policy. On this point, conventional wisdom is almost certainly correct. But it shouldn’t be, for two reasons. First, foreign policy is the one realm in which presidents can do pretty much what they want. (Congress may rant at some action but rarely halts it.) Second, in this election in particular, Mitt Romney’s statements on foreign policy range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous.
Does Romney believe the things that he’s said about arms control, Russia, the Middle East, the defense budget, and the rest? Who can say? He has no experience on any of these issues. But his advisers do; they represent, mainly, the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party (some, notably John Bolton, veer well to the right of even that). While not all presidents wind up following their advisers, Romney has placed his byline atop some of his coterie’s most egregious arguments—not least, several op-ed pieces against President Obama’s New START with Russia, pieces that rank as the most ignorant I’ve read in nearly 40 years of following the nuclear debate.

[Continued]

I think Obama claimed foreign policy experience because he was from Kenya and lived in indonesia.

But Mitt's dad was born in Mexico and Mitt lived in France for one year.  I think they are about equal in their foreign policy credentials. 

It's interesting that Mitt doesn't play up the fact that he's from Mexico more. But seriously, Obama's four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while perhaps a thin resume on the subject, nonetheless amount to more foreign policy experience than any president elected in the last twenty years (a list which, after all, includes just him, Bush the Younger, and Bill Clinton). Which is to suggest that foreign policy experience isn't high on the minds of most voters.

[asexual trans victimologist]

This editorial gets at an interesting and under-reported aspect of the Romney campaign. I'm interested in responses from a Romney-supporters. What would you expect from him? Why is he qualified? Is it really enough to respond that the economy is more important? Do we even know how he'd staff his administration?

Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidential elections do not hinge on foreign policy. On this point, conventional wisdom is almost certainly correct. But it shouldn’t be, for two reasons. First, foreign policy is the one realm in which presidents can do pretty much what they want. (Congress may rant at some action but rarely halts it.) Second, in this election in particular, Mitt Romney’s statements on foreign policy range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous.
Does Romney believe the things that he’s said about arms control, Russia, the Middle East, the defense budget, and the rest? Who can say? He has no experience on any of these issues. But his advisers do; they represent, mainly, the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party (some, notably John Bolton, veer well to the right of even that). While not all presidents wind up following their advisers, Romney has placed his byline atop some of his coterie’s most egregious arguments—not least, several op-ed pieces against President Obama’s New START with Russia, pieces that rank as the most ignorant I’ve read in nearly 40 years of following the nuclear debate.

[Continued]

I think Obama claimed foreign policy experience because he was from Kenya and lived in indonesia.

But Mitt's dad was born in Mexico and Mitt lived in France for one year.  I think they are about equal in their foreign policy credentials. 

Being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and having a running mate who chaired it at the time may also have had something to do with it.

[The Mikado]

I think we all know what to expect from Romney.

[ModerateCoward]

Obama wasn't qualified in any area in 2008, but he won. So I still think Romney has the leg up. Like Obama, he'll learn on the job, and I think he'll be fair.

McCain disqualified himself in economics with his own statement, and ability to make reasonable decisions by picking Palin.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You're talking about "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," right? I agree that it wasn't a smart thing to say, but it was just like any other gaffe. And really, I agree with what I think McCain was trying to say: "Our economy is based on the hard work of Americans, and that spirit will never die."

As for Palin... well, we know how that went.

If Obama could strengthen his foreign policy credentials with Biden, Romney should do the same with his running mate. I'm just afraid Romney will pass that chance by with his over-focus on the economy.

[WhyteRain]

Being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and having a running mate who chaired it at the time may also have had something to do with it.

Biden, Obama's "foreign policy mentor" said insane things about foreign policy in the 2008 VP debate.  Things like "France and the U.S. drove Hezbollah from Lebanon in the 1980s" and "Pakistan has missiles that can reach Israel".  And that's what he's brave enough to say in PUBLIC. 

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

[BlueDog Bimble]

Being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and having a running mate who chaired it at the time may also have had something to do with it.

Biden, Obama's "foreign policy mentor" said insane things about foreign policy in the 2008 VP debate.  Things like "France and the U.S. drove Hezbollah from Lebanon in the 1980s" and "Pakistan has missiles that can reach Israel".  And that's what he's brave enough to say in PUBLIC. 

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey George W. Bush.

Much better.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

[WhyteRain]

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

Cheney.  Way smarter than Biden.  Bush?  Still smarter than Obama.  Compare their idiotic remarks.  Even limit it to foreign affairs:  Bush didn't say we need "more Arabic speakers in Afghanistan".  Bush didn't sign a visitor log for the British royal family "2008" when it was 2011.  George and Laura WOULD have been invited to the recent royal wedding.  Bush didn't operate a program that "has poisoned relations with Mexico", according to the Mexican ambassador.  With Bush, we had better relations with just about every nation I can think of -- China, Russia, Israel, even Egypt and Libya.  Bush's success in making a democracy, however fragile, in Iraq is what inspired the "Arab Spring", but Obama has made a hash of that -- promoting a foreign policy that has brought more power to intolerant Islamicists than moderate democrats.  I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

[BlueDog Bimble]

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

Cheney.  Way smarter than Biden.  Bush?  Still smarter than Obama.  Compare their idiotic remarks.  Even limit it to foreign affairs:  Bush didn't say we need "more Arabic speakers in Afghanistan".  Bush didn't sign a visitor log for the British royal family "2008" when it was 2011.  George and Laura WOULD have been invited to the recent royal wedding.  Bush didn't operate a program that "has poisoned relations with Mexico", according to the Mexican ambassador.  With Bush, we had better relations with just about every nation I can think of -- China, Russia, Israel, even Egypt and Libya.  Bush's success in making a democracy, however fragile, in Iraq is what inspired the "Arab Spring", but Obama has made a hash of that -- promoting a foreign policy that has brought more power to intolerant Islamicists than moderate democrats.  I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Whilst some of this is true, Bush wasn't as smart as Obama is.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

Cheney.  Way smarter than Biden.  Bush?  Still smarter than Obama.  Compare their idiotic remarks.  Even limit it to foreign affairs:  Bush didn't say we need "more Arabic speakers in Afghanistan".  Bush didn't sign a visitor log for the British royal family "2008" when it was 2011.  George and Laura WOULD have been invited to the recent royal wedding.  Bush didn't operate a program that "has poisoned relations with Mexico", according to the Mexican ambassador.  With Bush, we had better relations with just about every nation I can think of -- China, Russia, Israel, even Egypt and Libya.  Bush's success in making a democracy, however fragile, in Iraq is what inspired the "Arab Spring", but Obama has made a hash of that -- promoting a foreign policy that has brought more power to intolerant Islamicists than moderate democrats.  I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Bush's Iraq did not start the Arab Spring, Bush's economic collapse led to increased unemployment among the young, at a time when the number of young people is very large, combined with repressive regimes that did little to help them, and the courage of a Tunisian fruit vendor. Islamists gained power after that because they were well-organized, popular, and traditionally seen as opponents of the old regime.

[True Federalist]

Face it:  Combined, Obama and Biden are the dumbest men ever in the White House.  At least since LBJ and Humphrey.

Cheney.  Way smarter than Biden.  Bush?  Still smarter than Obama.  Compare their idiotic remarks.  Even limit it to foreign affairs:  Bush didn't say we need "more Arabic speakers in Afghanistan".  Bush didn't sign a visitor log for the British royal family "2008" when it was 2011.  George and Laura WOULD have been invited to the recent royal wedding.  Bush didn't operate a program that "has poisoned relations with Mexico", according to the Mexican ambassador.  With Bush, we had better relations with just about every nation I can think of -- China, Russia, Israel, even Egypt and Libya.  Bush's success in making a democracy, however fragile, in Iraq is what inspired the "Arab Spring", but Obama has made a hash of that -- promoting a foreign policy that has brought more power to intolerant Islamicists than moderate democrats.  I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Maybe if we had more Arabic speakers in Afghanistan we wouldn't have started riots by accidentally burning Qurans.  I'll grant that Pashto and Dari are probably more important languages for Afghanistan, but we need Arabic speakers whenever we operate in an Islamic country.

[pbrower2a]

He'll have the exact same foreign policy as Obama. Don't see how it could be an issue when it's an issue which those two do not differ on.

Bill Clinton wisely adopted the foreign policy of his predecessor. Such prevented disasters that could easily have arisen.

...It looks as if Mitt Romney would be Jimmy Carter anew on foreign policy because of his naïveté, except that he would add more ruthlessness. If you thought that Carter was a disaster on foreign policy,  Mitt Romney would be worse.   

[Progressive Realist]

Obama wasn't qualified in any area in 2008,

Oh, this lie again.

[Emperor SJoyce]

He'll have the exact same foreign policy as Obama. Don't see how it could be an issue when it's an issue which those two do not differ on.

Bill Clinton wisely adopted the foreign policy of his predecessor. Such prevented disasters that could easily have arisen.

...It looks as if Mitt Romney would be Jimmy Carter anew on foreign policy because of his naïveté, except that he would add more ruthlessness. If you thought that Carter was a disaster on foreign policy,  Mitt Romney would be worse.   

Carter was really quite mixed foreign policy wise. The Iran hostage crisis, his support of the mujahideen, and his support for Indonesia (not to mention FISA) certainly weren't good, but the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, SALT II Treaty, Camp David Accords, and partial drawdown in South Korea were highlights of his administration. Overall, Carter was probably one of the best post-WWII presidents on foreign policy, especially given his respect for human rights. What'd be awful is if we had a guy in the White House who on foreign policy was like, say, Dubya, or Obama.